1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

3. The decision of the court of first instance is delivered with paragraph (1).

1. Basic facts

A. On December 18, 2006, the Plaintiff joined the Defendant and served as a broadcaster.

B. On February 26, 2013, the Defendant issued a six-month disciplinary measure against the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff posted a notice to the bulletin board inside the Defendant’s news media that reads the character of the Defendant’s executives and employees, thereby disrupting the order of the workplace” (hereinafter “instant primary disciplinary measure”).

C. On March 12, 2013, the Defendant issued a one-month disposition of suspension from office against the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff was subject to an individual evaluation of the class of Al (R) at least three times the lowest class (hereinafter “R class”) within the last three years (hereinafter “instant secondary disciplinary action”).”

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry in Gap evidence 2 and 3 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the primary disciplinary action in this case is legitimate

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (i) The Plaintiff’s assertion that there was no ground for disciplinary action is merely a criticism of the general level of opinion-raising on Defendant management, etc., but did not reach the degree of disrupting the workplace order by gathering the personality of Defendant management, etc., and thus, cannot be deemed a ground for disciplinary action.

In light of the fact that the plaintiff, who was improper in the decision on disciplinary action, was under severe stress due to several unfair transfers, and posted the above article as a means of resistance or request for correction of unfair transfer, and that the plaintiff has no record of being subject to disciplinary action while working as a broadcasting reporter for not less than six years and has served in good faith, the first disciplinary action in this case is an abuse of defendant's disciplinary discretion.

(b) Article 3 (Duty of Compliance) of the Rules of Employment of the Defendant Company shall work for employees under the terms and conditions of the work set out in these Rules, and its employees shall comply with the matters set out in these Rules and the regulations of the Company and shall perform in good faith the duties assigned under the commercial instruction

§ 4.